L
Lord Alex
Guest
Interesting discussion, which conveys the "wide" range of opinions on what constitutes a computer role-playing game. My list is pretty close to HiddenX with a few minor tweaks, so I'll refrain from generating my own. But, I will state that there definitely seems to be a fork in the CRPG road, where some prefer "sandbox" (Elder Scrolls) and others prefer "story" (anything by Bioware).
I guess I prefer something in between, and this harkens back to my days of playing and DM'ing pen-and-paper D&D. As a DM, you want the player to feel they are in control... that they are, in essence, writing the story by their very actions. However, as any good DM will tell you, this freedom is an illusion.
A good DM tries to predict how the plot might evolve and devises an overall structure or framework for the proceedings. This structure has definite plot points and events that "trigger" based on the player's actions. Done well, it appears to the player that they are walking into town Clint Eastwood-style and doing whatever they can that is allowable by the rules (and their alignment). But, in truth, the DM is only showing the player what is proper for them to see at that point in the narrative.
For my money, a good CRPG will accomplish the same thing. It will make me feel like I have the freedom to explore the world and go and do whatever I wish to at any time. However, the game rules (and the underlying story elements) will limit my access to key plot points, so the story plays out as it should in a somewhat linear fashion.
Though I'm not a huge fan of Oblivion, I feel it actually did a fairly good job of this. It made you feel like you were the architect of your own adventure while allowing you to participate in an epic quest. Baldur's Gate 2 and the Fallouts did a fairly good job of this too.
Where I dislike Oblivion's approach is the stream-lined gameplay used to achieve its goals. The mini-games were a mindless waste of time and energy, and the combat (though improved over Morrowind) can still be unbearably boring. I'm fine with playing in a sandbox, but don't rip out the strategy.... (aka baby with the bath-water).
I guess I prefer something in between, and this harkens back to my days of playing and DM'ing pen-and-paper D&D. As a DM, you want the player to feel they are in control... that they are, in essence, writing the story by their very actions. However, as any good DM will tell you, this freedom is an illusion.
A good DM tries to predict how the plot might evolve and devises an overall structure or framework for the proceedings. This structure has definite plot points and events that "trigger" based on the player's actions. Done well, it appears to the player that they are walking into town Clint Eastwood-style and doing whatever they can that is allowable by the rules (and their alignment). But, in truth, the DM is only showing the player what is proper for them to see at that point in the narrative.
For my money, a good CRPG will accomplish the same thing. It will make me feel like I have the freedom to explore the world and go and do whatever I wish to at any time. However, the game rules (and the underlying story elements) will limit my access to key plot points, so the story plays out as it should in a somewhat linear fashion.
Though I'm not a huge fan of Oblivion, I feel it actually did a fairly good job of this. It made you feel like you were the architect of your own adventure while allowing you to participate in an epic quest. Baldur's Gate 2 and the Fallouts did a fairly good job of this too.
Where I dislike Oblivion's approach is the stream-lined gameplay used to achieve its goals. The mini-games were a mindless waste of time and energy, and the combat (though improved over Morrowind) can still be unbearably boring. I'm fine with playing in a sandbox, but don't rip out the strategy.... (aka baby with the bath-water).